Yeah that's what he said over at gamasutra. He also said that the ps4 team could've used a 128-bit bus coupled with edram on chip to have onpar bandwidth performance like the setup they have now. But Microsoft isn't using edram anymore (like they did in the 360) but they're now using esram which is faster and power efficient.

Anyway one console maker has laid out their internal hardware details while the other has not so its quite hard to compare and contrast we can only guess. One more week and we should see how the games look on both platforms.

A lot of people including you thinks that the more stream processors you have then its the better but when you take into consideration the nvidia fix 650ti boost which has 768 stream processors CONTINUOUSLY best the amd 7850 with over 1000 stream processors then you'll know that those aren't the end all be all. There's a lot more going on.

I know they aren't using EDRAM but ESRAM is very similar in function like you said it just saves power and is lower latency at the cost of being more complex circuitry hence needing more space on the die.

You can't be serious trying to compare two completely different architectures it's almost as laughable as your way of working out TFLOPs, the only reason we can compare xO to PS4 is because they use the exact same series of GPU just one with less CUs and is the exact same reason why we can't compare PS3 to 360. There isn't a lot more going on, you just want there to be.

I know they aren't using EDRAM but ESRAM is very similar in function like you said it just saves power and is lower latency at the cost of being more complex circuitry hence needing more space on the die.

You can't be serious trying to compare two completely different architectures it's almost as laughable as your way of working out TFLOPs, the only reason we can compare xO to PS4 is because they use the exact same series of GPU just one with less CUs and is the exact same reason why we can't compare PS3 to 360. There isn't a lot more going on, you just want there to be.

I used the nvidia card as a reference to show stream count isn't everything.Granted the way I calculated th tflops was wrong. I had a feeling it was so I asked for correction ("prove it" that's what I said)

Compare a 650Ti to 660Ti which is roughly the same as comparing 7770 and 7850 stream count wise, you get the same performance gap.

You can't compare two different architectures as one may be more efficient than the other, the xO and PS4 use the same AMD Jaguar CPU and the same AMD Southern Islands 7xxx series GPU, one has more CUs disabled than the other.

There's no denying that the PS4's GPU is more powerful. I don't agree with Microsoft's decision to weaken their GPU so they can save some money and bundle a Kinect 2. Multi-platform titles will likely look and perform the same because developers must cater to the lowest common denominator in terms of performance (Xbox One). However, exclusive titles will likely look better on the PS4 simply because it has better GPU hardware. The PS3 was more powerful than the Xbox 360 this generation but it was also very hard to develop for. That won't be the case in the next generation because the architectures are near-identical.

Whether you want to decide on which console to buy based on the specs alone is your choice. I think it's better to consider more things like game selection, developer support, and other unique features to each console (e.g. Kinect 2 vs. PS4 Eye).

Multiplatform developers can't be seen to be favouring one console over the other by making one have noticeably better graphics there would be a sh*tstorm if CoD for example ran better with better graphics on PS4 over Xbox One.

They code with the capabilities of the slowest system in mind which is why PS3 was dragging down the quality of graphics this generation.

First party devs will continue to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of their respective system, but multiplatform games will always be inferior graphics wise.

Many games do look better on the 360, and there was no real sh*tstorm.

I wouldn't call it favouring one system over another, I would call it taking advantage of what you have been given to play with. Shouldn't any potential sh*tstorm arise when that isn't happening? I know if I was Sony, and I kept seeing my machine intentionally underutilised, I'd be ****ed, as should their users be.

The way I see it with the current gen, is that it was too hard to develop for the PS3 first, and then have the 360 port be up to scratch, so yes, they did go with the lowest common denominator, but now that the architecture is the same, there is no excuse, and the games engines should be able to scale without issue.

If I bought a game for my generic weak console after seeing screenshots and videos for the game played on generic powerful console I would be p*ssed that my game runs worse than the next persons purely because he bought Box B and I bought Box A. I may even go as far as not buying their games anymore. Publishers don't want this situation so they code for the lowest common denominator and port that game across.

The differences between 360 and PS3 multiplatform games were minor at best, maybe some choppy framerate issues or blurry graphics on PS3 but for the most part they looked the same.

The performance gap between Xbox One and PS4 theoretically is the difference between 1080p30 and 1080p60 at the same detail levels or the PS4 could look noticeably better with more effects turned on at 1080p30.

No developer is going to have their game running at 60FPS on one and 30FPS on the other, it would be a PR nightmare, people argue about PS3/360 graphics this gen and they are near identical, imagine what would happen next gen if one looked a lot better than the other.

It's not that simple, each box has its own exclusive franchises, the same reason I'm buying a PS4 for Uncharted, Gran Turismo, etc... which should take advantage of every last drop of performance, multiplatform will always be coded for the lowest common denominator graphics wise.

Developers will still sell the same amount of games, but just more on one box, than the other.

For most people, their buying decision is based on exclusives like Halo, Uncharted, Forza, Gran Turismo, and more. Developers have to create a consistent experience on multiple platforms otherwise they'll be perceived as favouring one over the other. Something like that could push away potential customers that don't own a console that plays the better-performing version.

once again talking out the rare huh mart? anyway its a common misconception that multi-platforms are coded for the lowest then ported up. most times they're coded for the easiest platform then ported over to others, other than that they're ported down, not up. I mean, you can look at it this way: it's easier to take details out of a picture than to add in.

What are you talking about? What TheLegendOfMart has said is true. Ease of development is a factor but performance is an even bigger factor. A competent development team wouldn't make version A of their game run well on console A but not on console B. They'd try to make it run well on console B so both consoles have a consistent experience. This has been true for the Call of Duty games as well as others like Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Mass Effect 3. Also, it doesn't apply to just consoles. In this generation, PC gaming has suffered the most when it came to multi-platform titles. A gaming PC is likely to be more powerful than the Xbox 360 and PS3; however, often times developers make games that have low-res textures, a 30 FPS limit, and a lack of PC-specific features (e.g. quick saving/loading).